The Supreme Court on Monday announced the postponement of hearings on several pleas related to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, pushing the date to the first week of April. The decision came from a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, who stated that the matters would be addressed by a three-judge bench.
This legislation, critical in maintaining the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, has been at the center of numerous petitions and controversies. Earlier in the day, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the number of new petitions being filed, suggesting a potential overload of interim applications (IAs) which might impede the court’s ability to handle the cases efficiently.
Chief Justice Khanna, during the proceedings, remarked on the challenges of managing such a high volume of cases. “There is a limit to which petitions can be filed. So many IAs have been filed we might not be able to take it up,” he said, indicating a congested schedule and the complexity involved in dealing with each case judiciously.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d86a3/d86a3c11aa756f14ecf2c3628b53d21eac5fd5b6" alt="Play button"
The Act has been a focal point for disputes, particularly involving requests from various Hindu parties for surveys to determine the original religious nature of several sites, including prominent mosques like Gyanvapi in Varanasi, Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura, and Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. These cases have stirred significant public and political interest, with figures like AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Samajwadi Party leader Iqra Choudhary advocating for the strict implementation of the law to uphold communal harmony and the secular constitution of India.
The hearings, originally scheduled for February 17 after a December 2024 order that stalled proceedings in about 18 lawsuits, have seen a steady influx of petitions that challenge or support the Act’s provisions. These include debates over Sections 2, 3, and 4, which restrict the conversion of any place of worship and limit judicial oversight over the religious character of these sites.